I've been looking into OPENPOS, sounds like an interesting UIA, the only concern I have is that the option "override_authority: ISSUER MAY TRANSFER ASSET BACK TO HIMSELF" flag is enabled - does this not mean you can recall all OPENPOS from holders in the future? 

I'm getting this same issue with bitshares-light_2.0.160524b_amd64.deb on Xubuntu 64bit.

Lintian check results for /home/username/Downloads/bitshares-light_2.0.160524b_amd64.deb:
E: BitShares-light: bad-package-name
E: BitShares-light: package-not-lowercase
E: BitShares-light: maintainer-name-missing community[member=73]bitshares[/member].org
Use of uninitialized value $name in pattern match (m//) at /usr/share/perl5/Lintian/Check.pm line 203.


I'm afraid there is some kind of misunderstanding here.

Bytemaster never said to merge steem and bitshares together... What he has talked about is the fact that the new types of elements that have been created in steem are not compatible with the current bitshares codebase.

In order for Bitshares to adopt the improvements that have been made in what we know as Steem today.. the best way to do it would be to create basically a bitshares 3.0 .. similar to how we went from 1.0 to 2.0.. in the new network it would have the new features etc.

There is, and never will be, some weird plan to 'merge' bitshares with steem.. it is technically impossible.

Here is the thing.. the codebase that bitshares run on is Graphene and is MIT licensed which means anybody can do what they like with it... which means Bytemaster has a choice.. he can come back to Bitshares and have the community vote and then implement this Bitshares 3.0 plan that incorporates new innovations that were gained from what was done on Steem.. OR.. can create a whole new decentralized exchange and call it something else. I highly doubt that will ever happen though.

Hope this helps clarify some things.

My post: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,22317.msg292330.html#msg292330

Post where BM clearly mentions his intent to merge STEEM into BTS: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,22317.msg290945.html#msg290945

I think the future is pretty clear for BTS:

1. work out the kinks with Steem
2. merge best parts of steem + BTS into a next generation DEX
3. sharedrop + dev allocation

It is just a much longer roadmap.

His post reads like he's proposing a merger of BTS+STEEM & dilution of the current coin supply than a snapshot to a new blockchain with no change to share allocations. His non-participation in discussion after this post doesn't help to clear up any misunderstandings his post has caused.

It's worth reading STEEM's licence (not MIT license): https://github.com/steemit/steem/blob/master/LICENSE.md

Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
4. The STEEMIT_INIT_PUBLIC_KEY_STR is not changed from STM8GC13uCZbP44HzMLV6zPZGwVQ8Nt4Kji8PapsPiNq1BK153XTX, and the software is not modified in any way that would bypass the need for the coresponding private to start a new blockchain.
5. The software is not used with any forks of the Steem blockchain that are not recognized by Steemit, Inc in writing.

One cannot adopt any of the code implemented in STEEM, their license expressly forbids it.

If BM intends to take STEEM's ideas without using any of their code then that may work around their extremely prohibitive license, but I still don't see how a digg clone has any place within a decentralized exchange..

Quote from: cryptillionaire on May 28, 2016, 01:57:00 pm

Still waiting for BM to acknowledge my post: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,22317.msg292330.html#msg292330

Publicly FUD BTS, Pump the premined Steemit, then merge BTS as a minority stake into Steemit?! Hodling is becoming increasingly difficult, feeling like sunk cost fallacy the lower we go

keep away of  Steemit

Tell that to BM https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,22317.msg290945.html#msg290945

Funding has been the sore spot that has kept bitshares at a valuation lower than most all of us have expected.  It has even caused the primary dev team of BitShares to not get paid for their work on the core project.

I think failures to get worker votes approved is not a failure of Bitshares, but rather a failure in those who are creating worker proposals to get their worker proposal noticed by enough BTS users.

Existing social media platforms such as reddit/irc (both the bitshares sub and irc channel are almost dead) aren't being fully utilised - I've only seen one blog mentioning worker proposals on reddit rather than workers themselves (minus the recent video worker - he's created reddit posts) trying to bring attention to their project. If you were to run for office and you got no votes, it's not because the system is broken but rather your own fault for not being able to convince/inform the voting population.

I don't like STEEM because it was 80% instantmined, didn't sharedrop on BTS, has an oppressive license and is being distributed by a central issuing authority; we can utilise existing platforms rather than building new ones to bring attention to Bitshares.

I think the future is pretty clear for BTS:

1. work out the kinks with Steem
2. merge best parts of steem + BTS into a next generation DEX
3. sharedrop + dev allocation

It is just a much longer roadmap.

I posted on the Bitshares price speculation thread about this (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,16894.msg291894.html#msg291894), but figured I should post in this thread too.

How is this the clear future for BTS? There's no mention of Steem in the BTS roadmap https://bitshares.org/roadmap.html

Is there going to be a community vote (with BTS balance as voting weight) to decide on whether to merge Steem into BTS? Or will this be a forced decision like the previous merger?

Why should Steem be merged into BTS? It's an instantmined (80% currently held by a central issuing authority) digg clone that didn't sharedrop onto BTS holders, I don't see how it has a place within a decentralized exchange platform.

The previous PTS/VOTE/DNS/BTSX merge was a nightmare - the price has yet to recover to anywhere near where it was prior to the merge & none of the DNS/VOTE/PTS functionality materialized in the BTS platform (Whilst you can theoretically sharedrop on BTS like in PTS, none of the recent new projects have bothered to do so - is sharedrop theory dead? edit: peerplay is doing a 5% sharedrop). If history is anything to go by, if we merge, Steem's features won't materialize in any such 'next generation DEX'.

I previously thought why not just merge Steem's features into BTS without the need for a sharedrop/merge, then I read their license.md https://github.com/steemit/steem/blob/master/LICENSE.md

Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:

• 4. The STEEMIT_INIT_PUBLIC_KEY_STR is not changed from STM8GC13uCZbP44HzMLV6zPZGwVQ8Nt4Kji8PapsPiNq1BK153XTX, and the software is not modified in any way that would bypass the need for the coresponding private to start a new blockchain.
• 5. The software is not used with any forks of the Steem blockchain that are not recognized by Steemit, Inc in writing.

With such a license, their project might as well be closed source.

Quoted from: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,22125.msg288257.html#msg288257

Steem is a Graphene-based Blockchain created by Steemit, Inc founded by Ned Scott.
Ned has been following BitShares since 2013 and early this year hired Cryptonomex to help build the Steem network.

Considering Ned Scott (founder of Steemit, Inc) has hired Cryptonomex to develop Steem & (I'm assuming) you're currently being paid to work on Steem, would you not consider your proposal to merge Steem into BTS a conflict of interest?

Is a precedent being set here where we are to expect [any/all] premined projects that hire Cryptonomex to have merger proposals pushed onto the BTS community at the expense of existing BTS investors?

You have to use facebook to sign up for steemit?! WTF?!

No sharedrop planned? Is sharedrop theory dead?